Posted on 08/30/2006 3:05:59 PM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON - Democrats chastised Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for questioning the historical grasp of those who criticize the Bush administration's handling of war, accusing him Wednesday of engaging in "dangerous business."
Several members of Congress had been urging Rumsfeld's to resign long before he asserted to the American Legion on Tuesday that war opponents displayed the kind of thinking that delayed military action against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.
Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism." And he warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.
His speech in Salt Lake City, in which he also said administration critics suffered from "moral confusion," prompted angry reactions from Democrats hoping to win back control of Congress.
"It is a dangerous business to accuse those who disagree with you of moral and intellectual confusion," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "Debate in our democracy is based upon respect, not vilification."
Said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
Responding Wednesday, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said, "Facts are facts. As the secretary said in his speech, America and the free world face a gathering threat of challenges from a vicious enemy that is serious, lethal and relentless. There are important lessons from history that we ought to be mindful of as we talk about how we are going to meet the challenges extremist terror organizations present."
In his speech, Rumsfeld said it "was apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides later said he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.
Nevertheless, many Democrats in Congress viewed Rumsfeld's remarks as fighting words.
Sen. Jack Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said Rumsfeld has been "substituting sloganing for strategy" and delivered a "calculated political argument" to make people believe that to support a war against terror requires support of the administration's policies.
"I think the analogy is very, very weak," Reed, D-R.I., said of Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq to World War II.
It is time Rumsfeld "should be departing" the Pentagon, Reed added. Reed, Pelosi and other Democrats have been calling for the defense secretary's resignation for more than a year.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York called Rumsfeld's portrayal of Democrats a "strawman" and said Americans need answers on how to deal with a looming civil war in Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., shot back, saying Democrats were not committed to winning the war on terror. If they were, he asked, "Why does (Schumer's) party attack the president over and over again for using all the tools necessary to identify, track down and stop those who want to do us harm?" Democrats have objected to aspects of the president's terrorist surveillance program.
Also Wednesday, a New York Democratic House candidate, Navy veteran Eric Massa, accused Rumsfeld of lying about progress in Iraq.
Massa, who is challenging one-term Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl, said he was outraged by Rumsfeld's comments and faulted him for blaming the media for his own misstatements and missteps. He said the Bush administration has no effective plan to secure the country.
"This thing has disintegrated," Tim Walz, a Minnessota Democrat running for a House seat, said of Iraq.
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the Democratic candidates' strategy is to criticize Republican efforts to win the war on terror, while elected Democrats are "committed to a strategy that will weaken our ability to defend America and make us less safe at home and abroad."
They are howling like schoolgirls becasue Rummy nailed them yesterday. The truth hurts.
People shouldn't be allowed to say things THAT funny.
Democrats whining like sissies about "respect, not vilification" when it comes to discussing the WOT! Oh, God, someone call the EMTs, I may laugh myself to death!
Democrats chastised Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for questioning the historical grasp of those who criticize the Bush administration's handling of war, accusing him Wednesday of engaging in "dangerous business."
It will be a headline when the Treason Caucus isn't "taking fire" at Rumsfeld. The whole Democratic message just appears to any thinking person to be one giant, uninspired treadmill. Next they'll be back to trashing Cheney. Then after that they'll come back to "Big Oil." Then next they'll go after "Big HMOs," then Wal Mart, then Halliburton, then back to Rumsfeld again, then Cheney and on and on the whole tired routine will go.
Can we trade pelosi and reed to al-qaeda for a rusty Ak-47 and a tub of hummus?
"It is a dangerous business to accuse those who disagree with you of moral and intellectual confusion," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "Debate in our democracy is based upon respect, not vilification."
Funny, but I've listened to nothing BUT vilification coming out of the demoncRat party ever since President Bush took office. And, casting aspersions, using innuendo and subterfuge, and making baseless accusations is NOT DEBATE. These people ought to be made to sit in a theatre and watch non-stop videos of their own stupidity for days on end.
That would be too costly a price for the other side.
That statement by Pelosi exposes the exact confusion that Rummy was talking about. These people are in a September 10 mentality. It just doesn't compute.
They took fire from Rummy yesterday. He scored a direct, devastating hit.
"Massa, who is challenging one-term Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl, said he was outraged by Rumsfeld's comments and faulted him for blaming the media for his own misstatements and missteps. He said the Bush administration has no effective plan to secure the country."
This is as opposed to the effective plan offered up by the demoncRats for how to secure the "country"? Which country was he refering to, anyway?
And its time for the Administration to fire back. And they are, and the dems can't handle it.
I love it...Looks like Secretary Rumsfeld hit a raw nerve of the inept and ill prepared of those unwilling to fight the WOT.
I'd rather trade them to AQ for a Terrorist To Be Named Later.
I think so.
"Democrats take fire at Rumsfeld"
That could be the title of almost every MSM article written containing the word "Rumsfeld".
And the occupation in Germany, which is the mode we have been in in Iraq for 2-1/2 years, lasted far longer than this. Nancy's plastic surgeon apparently cut off the blood flow to her brain.
"Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York called Rumsfeld's portrayal of Democrats a "strawman" and said Americans need answers on how to deal with a looming civil war in Iraq."
Looming Civil War? Civil War? Which one is it. We keep hearing from some demoncRats that Iraq is in a civil war, and others that the civil war is looming. Sheesh, you'd think they'd be able to get together on what their thoughts are.
Massa? that's what he calls Pelosi?
Yeah, the bombastic response tells me they were cut to the quick by Rumsfeld's entirely appropriate remarks.
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
Now Nancy if you can't figure that out by now,its time to open mouth and insert foot.
It was a thorough spanking. Now its time for Cheney to pile on! LOL
Hell, no trade required. thye belong on that side. Let's just try then hang them.
"Said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
Uh, because during WWII we didn't have such partisan bullsh*t from either party. Because the entire country was united in their desire to defeat the enemy at all costs. Because we didn't have members of either party issuing statements which rendered aid and comfort to the enemy. Because we didn't have Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, et al, constantly hammering away at the President and making false accusations against the country and our troops. Should I go on Ms. Pelosi? Idiot.
For anyone who's interested, here's a poll to Freep on Rumsfeld's truth telling at CSPAN's website if you've not already done so. We brought it back from the dead earlier when 74% were saying Rumsfeld's remarks were inappropriate. But I'm sure the DU and KOS will get their grubby little mits on it so Freep away if you've not already done so:
http://www.capitalnews.org/
the contrast between the administration, serious, sober and steadfast, and the screechy girls in the Rat party is profound.
"I think the analogy is very, very weak," Reed, D-R.I., said of Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq to World War II."
Reid's ability to use metacognition is non-existant.
Because the Democrats, and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the MSM, have made it politically impossible to conduct all-out war against the Islamists.
Amen.
It's now 57% Appropriate and 43% Inappropriate
No doubt about it.........the shoe fit!
Only if he's running for...something.
Imagine all the black voters that will be turned off by his last name. Who'd you vote for? I voted for E. Massa. HAHA!
Yup, Freepers have been working this one hard! Thanks for voting.
Nancy you need to be smacked back into reality.
Hang the traitors. The Founders would have.
What's really funny is that Rummy didn't even mention the Rats. He criticized the MSM but he never mentioned political opponents.
Curious that the Rats felt that an attack on the MSM was actually an attack on them. Gosh I wonder why.
Had the Republicans acted during WWII as the Democrats are acting today, they would all have been up on treason and sedition charges. Given the lack of support and condemnation the President has gotten from liberals over the WOT I am amazed at how much he has accomplished. FDR never faced opposition like W is now. It is an absolute disgrace.
Said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
Outrageous comments!!
Maybe because we didn't worry so much about collateral damage in WW2.
Please. We beat the Iraqi army in 10 minutes. It is the terrorists dressed as civilians hiding behind women and children who we are still dealing with.
(UPDATED) AP takes the hatchet to Rumsfeld speech
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 29, 2006
****UPDATED: AP has apparently edited the original article. See update below.****
Interesting little side by side here. Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to the American Legion. You can read it here. Robert Burns from AP reported on the speech. You can read it here. Below are some comparisons from the story and the speech.
1. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
What Rumsfeld said:
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.
Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.
We need to face the following questions:
* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?
These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.
2. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
What Rumsfeld said:
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be appeased, then the carnage and destruction of then-recent memory of World War I might be avoided. It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis — the rise of fascism and Nazism — were ridiculed and ignored.
Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated — or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace — even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear.
It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator’s reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”
Think of that!
[...]
And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors — the ones who dominate the headlines today — who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.
But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.
And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
3. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496
Dems. are so despondent. Abizaid says Iraq is "far from civil war" and says his Senate testimony was badly twisted and misrepresented, the commanders say violence is down significantly in Baghdad and that civil war now appears remote. Oh and gas prices are going down really fast too. Looks like Dems. are losing their grip on the November mid-terms.
I say don't let Novak and others who claim this is a done deal on the election for Dems. to win the House as he's claiming in a lame article today. The wind has now shifted to the GOP's back on Iraq, oil prices and even Bush's approval numbers. Economic stats. on GNP were revised upwards meaning GNP has been 4.25% for the year so far (Bush needs to tout this more.) I see the GOP's fortunes changing. The Bad News Bears (the Democrats) may have peaked too soon.
Had the Republicans acted then like Dems do now, the GOP would have died as a national political party (and deservedly so).
I trust Rummy. I don't know what happened to the Democratic party over the years, but all I now see are American traitors. I often think the Clintons started this downward spiral, but perhaps I'm wrong.
The same Moonbat after a direct hit. Ya gotta love it!!! 
There is a lot of verifiable information that FDR had prior knowledge that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and let it happen. He knew that was his ticket into WWII because he knew the American public would never go for getting involved in another European and Pacific war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.